Loading...
PB Minutes 2012-01-17TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Tuesday, January 17, 2012 AGENDA 7:00 P.M. Persons to be heard (no more than five minutes). 7:05 P.M. SEQR Determination: Krizek 2 -Lot Subdivision, 134 & 128 Poole Road. 7:05 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 2 -Lot subdivision located at 134 and 128 Poole Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 28 -1 -34.19 and 28 -1 -34.9, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves subdividing 0.151 +/- acres, which contains an existing garage, from the southeast corner of 134 Poole Road (Tax Parcel No. 28 -1- 34.19), which will then be consolidated with 128 Poole Road (Tax Parcel No. 28 -1- 34.9). Richard J. Krizek and Janet Krizek, Owners /Applicants. 7:15 P.M. Consideration of a sketch plan for the proposed 23 -lot subdivision located off Park Lane south of John Street, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 56 -3 -13.2, 56 -3- 13.36, and 57 -2- 1.2, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves the construction of two new roads to provide access to 22 new residential lots and one lot reserved for stormwater facilities. The proposed Edwin Drive is located on the west side of Park Lane and will contain 6 residential lots while the proposed Brian Drive is on the east side of Park Lane and contains 16 residential lots. This project was originally submitted to the Town of Ithaca Planning Board in 2007 for preliminary subdivision approval, but did not receive any approvals. William P. Frandsen, Owner /Applicant; Theodore E. Lauve, P.E., Agent. 5. Nomination and Election of Vice Chairperson for 2012. 6. Approval of Minutes: December 20, 2011. Other Business: - Letter from Integrated Acquisition and Development. Adjournment Susan Ritter Director of Planning 273 -1747 NOTE: IF ANY MEMBER OF THE PLANNING BOARD IS UNABLE TO ATTEND, PLEASE NOTIFY SANDY POLCE AT 273 -1747. (A quorum of four (4) members is necessary to conduct Planning Board business.) TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS Tuesday, January 17, 2012 By direction of the Chairperson of the Planning Board, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing will be held by the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca on Tuesday, January 17, 2012, at 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, N.Y., at the following time and on the following matter: 7:05 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 2 -Lot subdivision located at 134 and 128 Poole Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 28 -1 -34.19 and 28 -1 -34.9, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves subdividing 0.151 +/- acres, which contains an existing garage, from the southeast corner of 134 Poole Road (Tax Parcel No. 28 -1- 34.19), which will then be consolidated with 128 Poole Road (Tax Parcel No. 28 -1- 34.9). Richard J. Krizek and Janet Krizek, Owners/Applicants. Said Planning Board will at said times and said place hear all persons in support of such matters or objections thereto. Persons may appear by agent or in person. Individuals with visual impairments, hearing impairments or other special needs, will be provided with assistance as necessary, upon request. Persons desiring assistance must make such a request not less than 48 hours prior to the time of the public hearing. Susan Ritter Director of Planning 273 -1747 Dated: Monday, January 9, 2012 Publish: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 TOWN OF ITHACA AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION I, Sandra Polce, being duly sworn, depose and say that I am a Senior Typist for the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York; that the following Notice has been duly posted on the sign board of the Town of Ithaca and that said Notice has been duly published in the local newspaper, The Ithaca Journal. Notice of Public Hearings to be held by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board in the Town of Ithaca Town Hall, 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, New York, on Tuesday, January 17, 2012 commencing at 7:00 P.M., as per attached. Location of Sign Board used for Posting: Town Clerk Sign Board — 215 North Tio ate. Date of Posting: January 9, 2012 Date of Publication: January 11, 2012 Sawd�� (34A-4� Sandra Polce, Senior Typist Town of Ithaca STATE OF NEW YORK) SS: COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) Sworn to and subscribed before me this 11`h day of January 2012. nil Notary Public DEg,0RAH KELLEY Notary- Public, State of New York, No. 01 KE6025073 Qualified in Schuyler County Commission apires May 17,,20 Wed esday, „January 11, 2012 THE ITHAJOUR AL Town of Ithaca Planning Board 215 North Tioga Street January 17,.2012 7:00 p.m. PLEASE SIGN -IN Please Print Clearly, Thank You Name Address 2LY) r-d 1 'Z- 3 f ".,^ k- FILE _.___�- ---- -- DATE Z TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD MEETING Tuesday, January 17, 2012 215 N. Tioga Street, Ithaca, NY 14850 Board Members Present: Fred Wilcox (Chair), Linda Collins, George Conneman, John Beach, Jon Bosak, Ellen Baer, David Slottje, Hollis Erb Staff Present: Susan Ritter, Director of Planning; Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement; Creig Hebdon, Engineer; Chris Balestra, Planner; Mike Smith, Planner; Deb DeAugistine, Deputy Town Clerk; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town Call to Order Mr. Wilcox called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. and accepted the secretary's posting of the public hearing notice. AGENDA ITEM Persons to be heard No one came forward to address the Board. AGENDA ITEM SEQR Determination: Krizek 2 -Lot Subdivision, 134 & 128 Poole Road Mr. Krizek explained that he owns two lots next to each other. He lives in one of the houses and rents out the other. The garage, in which he stores all his equipment, is on the rental property. He wants to sell the rental property, but keep his garage, and fasten that piece of property to his. Mr. Wilcox asked if he could pick up the garage and move it to the property he lives on. Mr. Krizek explained that he can't because it's on a foundation and a slab. PB Resolution No. 2012.001: SEQR, Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, Krizek 2 -Lot Subdivision, 128 & 134 Poole Road, Tax Parcel No.'s 28 -1 -34.9 & 28.1.34.19 Moved by George Conneman; seconded by Hollis Erb WHEREAS: This is consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed two -lot subdivision located at 128 and 134 Poole Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No's 28 -1 -34.9 & 28 -1- 34.19, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves subdividing 0.151 + /- acres containing an existing garage from the southeast corner of 134 Poole Road (Tax Parcel No. 28 -1- 34.19) and consolidating it with 128 Poole Road (Tax Parcel No. 284- 34.9). Richard J. Krizek and Janet Krizek, Owners /Applicants, and This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is acting in this uncoordinated environmental review with respect to Subdivision Approval, and Planning Board Minutes 01.17 -2012 Page 2 of 10 The Planning Board, on January 17, 2012, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, a Part II prepared by the Town Planning staff, a survey map titled "Survey Map, No. 128 & 134 Poole Road, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York," prepared by Lee Dresser, Licensed Land Surveyor with T. G. Miller, P.C., dated 10/17/2011, and other application materials, and The Town planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed Subdivision Approval; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance for the reasons set forth in the Environmental Assessment Form Part II referenced above, in accordance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act for the above referenced action as proposed, and, therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement will not be required. Vote: Ayes: Wilcox, Collins, Conneman, Beach, Baer, Bosak, Erb AGENDA ITEM Public Hearing: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 2- Lot subdivision located at 134 and 128 Poole Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 28 -1 -34.19 and 28 -1 -34.9, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves subdividing 0.151 +/- acres, which contains an existing garage, from the southeast corner of 134 Poole Road (Tax Parcel No. 28 -1- 34.19), which will then be consolidated with 128 Poole Road (Tax Parcel No. 28 -1- 34.9). Richard J. Krizek and Janet Krizek, Owners /Applicants. Mr. Wilcox opened the public hearing at 7:07 p.m. Mr. Bates said that Mr. Krizek would not need a variance from the Town's local zoning, but he would need a State variance unless he either had the wall next to the property line fire rated or moved the lot line to get an additional eight inches of setback. The State requires a setback of at least five feet from the eaves to the property line if it's not fire rated, so he needs to shift the lot line closest to the street to the west. Mr. Wilcox closed the public hearing at 7:18 p.m. PB Resolution No. 2012.002: Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, Krizek 2 -Lot Subdivision, 128 & 134 Poole Road, Tax Parcel No.'s 28 -1 -34.9 & 28 -1 -34.19 Moved by John Beach; seconded by Hollis Erb Planning Board Minutes 01- 17.2012 Page 3 of 10 1. This is consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed two -lot subdivision located at 128 and 134 Poole Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No's 28 -1 -34.9 & 28- 1- 34.19, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves subdividing 0.151 + /- acres containing an existing garage from the southeast corner of 134 Poole Road (Tax Parcel No. 28 -1- 34.19) and consolidating it with 128 Poole Road (Tax Parcel No. 28 -1- 34.9). Richard J. Krizek and Janet Krizek, Owners /Applicants, and 2. The Planning Board on January 17, 2012, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, a Part II prepared by the Town Planning staff, a survey map titled "Survey Map, No. 128 & 134 Poole Road, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York," prepared by Lee Dresser, Licensed Land Surveyor with T. G. Miller, P.C., dated 10/17/2011, and other application materials; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final Subdivision Checklists, having determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of subdivision control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board, and 2. That the Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed two4ot subdivision located at 128 and 134 Poole Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 28 -1 -34.9 and 28 -1- 34.19, as shown on the map titled "Survey Map, No. 128 & 134 Poole Road, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York," subject to the following conditions: a. Submission, for signing by the Chairperson of the Planning Board, of an original or mylar copy of the approved plat, revised to show the north /south lot line adjacent to the garage shifted 1 foot to the west, along with three dark -lined prints, prior to filing with the Tompkins County Clerk's Office, and submission of a receipt of filing to the Town of Ithaca Planning Department, and b. Within six months of this approval, consolidation of the 0.151 + /- acre parcel containing the garage at 134 Poole Road (Tax Parcel No. 28 -1- 34.19), with 128 Poole Road (Tax Parcel No. 28 -1- 34.9), and submission of a copy of the consolidation request to the Town of Ithaca Planning Department. Vote: Ayes: Wilcox, Collins, Conneman, Beach, Baer, Bosak, Erb AGENDA ITEM Consideration of a sketch plan for the proposed 23 4ot subdivision located off Park Lane south of John Street, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 56 -3 -13.2, 56 -3- 13.36, and 57- 24.2, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves the construction of two new roads to provide access to 22 new residential lots and one lot reserved for stormwater facilities. The proposed Edwin Drive is located on the west side of Park Lane and will contain 6 residential lots while the proposed Brian Planning Board Minutes 01 -17 -2012 Page 4 of 10 Drive is on the east side of Park Lane and contains 16 residential lots. This project was originally submitted to the Town of Ithaca Planning Board in 2007 for preliminary subdivision approval, but did not receive any approvals. William P. Frandsen, Owner /Applicant; Theodore E. Lauve, P.E., Agent. Charles Guttman, attorney, William Frandsen, and Theodore Lauve were present. Mr. Lauve stated that this project has been resurrected, and he will be addressing the outstanding engineering and environmental issues that were left hanging a' couple of years ago. He said the essence of the design will remain the same. The subdivision will involve both sides of Park Lane off Route 79. He described the subdivision: Brian Drive will have 16 building lots and one lot for stormwater control; Edwin Drive on the east side will have six lots and no separate stormwater lot. He explained how the stormwater control will work. The original 2005 design no longer conforms to the current regulations, so they will work with Engineering Staff to update the pond designs, environmental controls, and green infrastructure requirements to conform to the new regulations. Once the stormwater plan is accepted, they will submit a notice of intent to obtain a state stormwater, discharge permit. On Edwin, which is flatter than Brian Drive, stormwater will be directed to the bottom of the lots and intercepted by a dry swale and discharged into an existing channel on the west side. Mr. Beach noted that he lives further up in the neighborhood; he asked what impact the development will have on the safety of the intersection at Route 79, Park Lane, and the entrance to Six mile Creek Vineyard. It's already a challenge getting out of Park Lane onto Route 79. Mr. Lauve responded that a rough estimate of an increase in traffic during the peak hour is one car per hour per lot, for a total of 22 cars per hour, or one car every three minutes. Right now the level of service on Route 79 is fairly good. The trouble is getting out onto the highway. Mr. Beach said this is especially true when the winery across the street is busy. Mr. Wilcox asked Mr. Lauve to describe the challenges of dealing with stormwater detention along Brian Drive. Mr. Lauve responded that they have to minimize runoff and keep it below predevelopment conditions, and try to do it within each house site. One of the practices is to use rain gardens, which help reduce the runoff and reduce the water quality impact. The water that does run off will be collected in a dry swale that runs along to the bottom of the detention pond. The upper detention pond will take the runoff from the upper lots. Both the ponds will have to be designed to reduce for predevelopment runoff for the one -year storm, the ten -yeas storm, and the one - hundred -year storm. Mr. Hebdon concurred. Mr. Bosak listed his preliminary concerns, noting that he was not on the Planning Board the last time this project was reviewed. He is concerned about the topography regarding both the access from Park Lane and the land itself. He wondered whether a clustered development wouldn't make more sense. He would want to take a very good look at the SWPPP. He would also be concerned Planning Board Minutes 01.17 -2012 Page 5 of 10 about runoff that comes through from the existing developed property above. He noted the steepness of the roads, particularly Brian Drive: stretches of that drive are almost a 12- percent grade. He questioned what it will be like driving on that road with a coating of ice on it. A resident of John Street told him that the existing drive up Park Lane is nasty enough that she sometimes goes around to Honness Lane, and she has seen cars abandoned on the side of Park Road when drivers couldn't make it up the hill. He wondered how cars and fire trucks will fare on an even steeper road under those conditions. Since the situation is already problematic, traffic will have to be looked at carefully. He also wanted to know how the public would access the Town park from the new development. Mr. Smith explained that there's an existing park at the end of each road. Tudor Park is a developed park with a playground structure, picnic tables, etc, at the end of Edwin Drive. Eastern Heights Park, at the end of Brian, is a large park with a playground structure, basketball court, soccer field, and hiking/walking trails. Access to Eastern Heights Park is from above. Mr. Wilcox noted that for larger subdivisions, the Town generally likes to set aside about ten percent for a park or open space. He wondered whether a set -aside was needed for this development. Since Mr. Frandsen has done previous subdivisions in this area, it's possible that they anticipated the eventual subdivision of this acreage as well; i.e., the parks are oversized for the original subdivision, but are commensurate for the whole buildout of the site. To a question from Mr. Wilcox about drainage easements on Park Lane, Mr. Hebdon answered that the Town road right of way goes from the turn from Route 79 to the top of the banks so the Town can maintain the banks. The water from Eastern Heights comes down Park Lane and into the creek at Six Mile Creek Winery. Ms. Erb listed her concerns and observations. She agreed with Mr. Bosak's concerns about steepness. She would like the applicant to be able to reassure all the John Street uphill neighbors of the continued stability of the bank below their homes. She will also want to see all six homes on Edwin Drive on the outline. She pointed out that Tudor Park is at the end of the East Hill Rec Way. She thinks the peak traffic will not go down Park Lane, but up hill to Snyder Hill Road toward the college and shopping plaza, which will save the embattled south end of Pine Tree Road. She'll be interested in traffic counts coming onto Snyder Hill Road from Regency and Sharlene. Slope stability is a huge issue, and she'll want to know how they will landscape those homes to protect the slope and how they will prevent people from planting in the storm conveyance trench. She will want to know if water is falling from the John Street residences onto this property. The steepness is appalling -- she doesn't know where 15 or 20 cars will be parked when they can't get up the slope. She recalled that at the last sketch plan, some members weren't convinced that C9 and C11 should be built on with such steep approaches into the homes. She suggested those lots be used for the residents' community parking lot, instead. Mr. Bates stated that they will not be able to use Brian Drive as a road name; it's too closely related to names of existing roads in the County. He also stated that they will have to meet the Town's requirements on the turnarounds for fire protection, which are more restrictive than those required Planning Board Minutes 01 -17 -2012 Page 6 of 10 by the fire codes. He requested that the drawings be changed to more clearly define the building lots on Edwin Drive; the way they are currently drawn shows, them going over certain easements. Ms. Brock asked who will own and maintain the roads and stormwater lots. Mr. Lauve replied that the roads will be turned over to the Town upon completion of construction and acceptance of the road by Public Works. The stormwater control facilities will be owned and maintained by the homeowners association. Ms. Brock asked if the Brian Drive cul -de -sac exceeds Town road standards. Mr. Hebdon said he will check. Ms. Brock noted that the Town usually considers slopes steep if they're more than 25 %, and suggested that the applicant use that as their benchmark. Mr. Smith said that at the 2007 meeting, the Planning Staff discussed using a color -coded map to delineate different increments of slopes. Ms. Brock noted that if the roads are going to be dedicated to the Town, they will need to be shown as separate lots, making it a 25 -lot subdivision with 22 residential lots, one stormwater facility lot, and two roads. Another consideration she pointed out, which the County also noted in their letter, is whether there's a need for sidewalks and if the five -foot shoulder was enough. Ms. Erb said a pedestrian might be safer on a sidewalk with a hard curb as vehicles slip around on the two streets, and it would be nice to have a defined route along the two roads to the Town parks. Mr. Wilcox responded that there's not going to be a lot of traffic on these roads, and there are no sidewalks in the whole Eastern Heights subdivision. It's an area where you don't take sidewalks to get from one neighborhood to another; a paved shoulder might be reasonable. Ms. Erb said that another issue is convenient and safe access to the bus route. She'd like them to define the bus route through the neighborhood. Mr. Hebdon noted that there have been changes in the procedure since the last time the applicant came before the Board. After preliminary site plan approval, the roads and water and sewer go to the Public Works Committee. After they make a recommendation to the Town Board to accept them in concept, the project comes back to the Planning Board for final site plan review. The idea is to allow the Town Board to look at the plan before anything gets built. Mr. Wilcox invited the public to address the board. Linda Hoffman, 17 John Street, stated that drainage is of great concern to neighbors on John Street, so it was very satisfying to have heard the Board discussion on this topic. She said that the lots are going to be individually owned, so there will be no control or approval over landscaping. The stormwater facility will be maintained by the association. She pointed out that there is a covenant Planning Board Minutes 01 -17 -2012 Page 7 of 10 on John Street that came with the abstract, and she does not know how it is legally enforced. The covenant says that the property can't be developed for less than $125,000, which is inadequate for today's standards, and mentions nothing about drainage and landscaping. People buying lots in the new subdivision will need to be informed that there's a fee related to maintaining the facility. Neighbors on John Street are also concerned about the value of their homes. She wondered what value will be required to build a home on the new lots and how that will impact the value of their homes on John Street. She thanked the Board for the park system. On the end of the John Street cul -de -sac is a beautiful wide trail that goes up into the park and links into the upper area and into Tudor. It would be lovely to also provide a link for the people who reside on Brian. She said this subdivision will change the bird life and wildlife in the area; it would be wonderful to find a way to minimize that. She noted that a few years ago the Town put a new road surface on John and Park streets to provide more traction. The neighbors didn't like it because it kept shedding and was granular and dogs got it in their paws. Traction is an issue. Park can be a slippery slope, and it can sometimes be difficult to stop when entering onto Route 79. She said that turning left onto Park from Route 79 is a nightmare. She is very concerned about their view, which is spectacular. The neighbors hope they can maintain the value of their properties on John Street. Victor Dillard, 15 John Street, stated that turning left off Park Lane onto Route 79 is difficult with traffic coming in both directions at 55 mph. He is also concerned about drainage: water flows towards Route 79, and there has been no control of water as it leaves their yards and approaches this parcel. He wondered how they will control water, not only on those sites, but also the flow of water from John Street to the site. Ms. Erb responded that the Town Attorney will review the draft homeowners association documents. There will be heavy contingencies about maintenance clauses for stormwater facilities, including the right of the Town to inspect them and step in and charge the association, if needed. She doesn't think the Board is legally allowed to consider views from private property - when they do a viewshed analysis, they're supposed to look only from public spaces, not private spaces. Mr. Bosak voiced concern about how things like this are maintained, because in the last few years, so many homeowners associations [in the nation, not in the Town] have gone belly up. He also wondered how there will be enough funds to maintain the infrastructure if only a few units are sold. Ms. Brock stated that she was not sure that the Board can't look at any aspect of visual impact - they do look at impacts on the character of the neighborhood. AGENDA ITEM Nomination and Election of Vice Chairperson for 2012 PB Resolution No. 2012.003:Nomination and Election, Planning Board Vice Chairperson 2012 Moved by George Conneman; seconded by John Beach RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board does hereby nominate and elect Hollis Erb as Vice Chairperson of the Planning Board for the year 2012. Planning Board Minutes 01 -17 -2012 Page 8 of 10 FURTHER RESOLVED, that said election shall be reported to the Town Board. Vote: Ayes: Wilcox, Collins, Conneman, Beach, Baer, Bosak, Slottje AGENDA ITEM Approval of Minutes: December 20, 2011 PB Resolution No. 2012.004: Minutes of December 20, 2011 Moved by Fred Wilcox; seconded by Hollis Erb WHEREAS, the Town of Ithaca Planning Board has reviewed the draft minutes from the meeting on December 20, 2011; now therefore be it RESOLVED, the Town of Ithaca Planning Board approves the minutes, with corrections, to be the final minutes of the meeting on December 20. Vote: Ayes: Wilcox, Collins, Conneman, Beach, Bosak, Slottje, Erb Abstentions: Baer AGENDA ITEM Other Business Letter from Integrated Acquisition &. Development (IAD) - dated Dec. 22, 2011 Mr. Bosak, Ms. Erb, and Mr. Beach were of the opinion that the minutes of the meeting in question (Dec. 20) speak for themselves. Mr. Slottje stated that his view is that the letter does not, in any way, accurately reflect what happened at the meeting. He would not like someone who was not in attendance to think that the letter was accurate. In his view, there was an affirmative misrepresentation by the applicant about what was happening, and it went right to the foundation of what the Board was talking about. Mr. Slottje said he has at least as much experience, in terms of years, in the commercial real estate business as their entire shop, and it is beyond his belief that anyone in that business, which is notoriously rough and tumble, could possibly be as offended as the writer claims to have been by what happened at the meeting. What he thought happened was that IAD, by their own admission, . did not advise the applicant that it's not their project. He did not know why IAD's representative attended the meeting -- whether they were asked by the developer to be there or they wanted to develop a relationship with the developer. However, given that the applicant affirmatively misrepresented what was going on, Mr. Slottje thought IAD was embarrassed by what happened and was trying to make it look like the Board [sentence not completed]. Normally he would agree with other Board members and let the minutes speak for themselves, but he hated to have this unchallenged in the record because he thinks it's inaccurate. Planning Board Minutes 01 -17 -2012 Page 9 of 10 Mr. Conneman agreed. His point of view is that the applicant completely ignored who created the problem, which was the City of Ithaca, and they did not make a very good attempt to find alternate places for the workers to park. Mr. Slottje added that they admitted subsequently that they didn't look anywhere else, with the exception of driving by Crispell's. They started out at 100 workers, then said they're really going to need parking for 500 people. Mr. Conneman stated that he thought these minutes ought to note those two points, because it's unfair to the Board. The Board did not condemn the City of Ithaca, which they could have, for what they didn't do, and also the same with the developer in that they really didn't look for alternatives. Mr. Bosak asked if the minutes could be appended by saying the letter does not accurately reflect what took place. Ms. Collins added that the letter states that the Planning Board has no right to look in the past and are only supposed to be looking at things that are happening at the moment. Since she's only been on the Board for a year, she was not acquainted with anything about that site, so she was glad to hear the discussion. She said that it's becoming clearer to her why people are on the Board for a seven -year term: it is critically important to look at the past and to integrate that into the decision making that's happening at any given moment. She stated that she was strongly taken aback by the assertion that was made that is not true. Ms. Erb added that when the Board talked about the past, it was from the point of view of wanting the applicant to understand why the Board is very sensitive about this area. The Board prefaced the discussion with "we're very sensitive because of things that have taken place in the past." Mr. Wilcox said he expected the Board to be and act very civilly with the applicants, and to ask questions and probe to get information so they can make the best decision possible. He thought that at one point during that meeting, the room seemed like a court room, where the prosecutor was interrogating a defendant. The sense of civility the Board should maintain was lost. For him, that was the problem. He also blamed himself for not seeing it and stopping it or at least interjecting. He asked Mr. Slottje to confirm that he, at one point, told the applicant he should have brought an attorney. Mr. Slottje responded that that is one of the places in the letter where there is an inaccuracy. He said it in the context of when the applicant decided that it would be good for his cause to shift from 100 workers who needed parking to 500. That's when he made that statement. Mr. Slottje said that, to the extent that all or a large portion of the prosecutorial attitude came from him, he sincerely apologized. One of his biggest weaknesses - he can deal with people who need help, people who are not as able as others, whether they're professionals or others - is that he has a very low tolerance for people who lie to him. He saw that what Mr. Thurston wrote is an affirmative lie, which they admitted as such. When someone lies, he reacts poorly. He said he thought that even the letter from Planning Board Minutes 01 -17 -2012 Page 10 of 10 IAD is close to that, and he refused to believe that anyone in this business was as offended as Mr. Colbert said he was - that he's never been so in 20 years. Mr. Wilcox asserted that the Planning Board's job is not to be accusatory, but to gather information and make a good decision within the rules in which the Board operates. Mr. Conneman responded that the record shows that the Board members do that. There are lots of proposals that have come to the Board which they improve; for example, Belle Sherman Cottages. Ms. Ritter said that she agreed with Mr. Wilcox. There was conversation after the meeting where people said it felt very uncomfortable. They were disappointed with a meanness that took place, something she has not seen in her years working with the Planning Board. She thinks they have to be careful as to what is okay for a Planning Board. She doesn't want to see civility to go downhill for any reason. It's important to be very respectful. Mr. Bosak said that, without denying the need to maintain civility, when someone comes to a formal proceeding and says the thing that is not, and the Board knows it, it's hard to be civil. The man said that they had carefully researched the parking areas, and it became very clear that they had done no such thing. Mr. Wilcox argued that their research was considered to be woefully insufficient by some members of this Board, but from their perspective, he could argue that the applicant came in to request to use a vacant parking lot as a parking lot. He's not arguing that they shouldn't have looked at other locations, but the fact that they didn't look, the Board can make note of, but not accuse them of all sorts of bad things because they didn't look at the one place the Board thought they should have. Mr. Slottje responded that the issue is not that they didn't look. The issue is that they gave the Board a piece of paper that specifically said they had made an exhaustive search. He apologized again to everyone. Planning Federation Ms. Ritter said she received a letter from the NY Planning Federation asking her to provide Board member names and email addresses. She will send out an email to Board members; if they want to provide their email to the Planning Federation, they should email the information to Ms. Ritter. Adjournment Upon a motion by Hollis Erb, the meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, r.14 A�l D bra DeAugist , Deputy T w Clerk